Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:24:12 +0100 | From | Lukasz Majewski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dsa: marvell: Provide per device information about max frame size |
| |
Hi,
> Hi Russell, > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:16:49AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > > > Different Marvell DSA switches support different size of max frame > > > bytes to be sent. This value corresponds to the memory allocated > > > in switch to store single frame. > > > > > > For example mv88e6185 supports max 1632 bytes, which is now > > > in-driver standard value. On the other hand - mv88e6250 supports > > > 2048 bytes. To be more interresting - devices supporting jumbo > > > frames - use yet another value (10240 bytes) > > > > > > As this value is internal and may be different for each switch IC, > > > new entry in struct mv88e6xxx_info has been added to store it. > > > > > > This commit doesn't change the code functionality - it just > > > provides the max frame size value explicitly - up till now it has > > > been assigned depending on the callback provided by the IC driver > > > (e.g. .set_max_frame_size, .port_set_jumbo_size). > > > > I don't think this patch is correct. > > > > One of the things that mv88e6xxx_setup_port() does when initialising > > each port is: > > > > if (chip->info->ops->port_set_jumbo_size) { > > err = chip->info->ops->port_set_jumbo_size(chip, > > port, 10218); if (err) > > return err; > > } > > > > There is one implementation of this, which is > > mv88e6165_port_set_jumbo_size() and that has the effect of setting > > port register 8 to the largest size. So any chip that supports the > > port_set_jumbo_size() method will be programmed on initialisation to > > support this larger size. > > > > However, you seem to be listing e.g. the 88e6190 (if I'm > > interpreting the horrid mv88e6xxx_table changes correctly) > > Those changes were requested by the community. Previous versions of > this patch were just changing things to allow correct operation of the > switch ICs on which I do work (i.e. 88e6020 and 88e6071). > > And yes, for 88e6190 the max_frame_size = 10240, but (by mistake) the > same value was not updated for 88e6190X. > > The question is - how shall I proceed? > > After the discussion about this code - it looks like approach from v3 > [1] seems to be the most non-intrusive for other ICs. >
I would appreciate _any_ hints on how shall I proceed to prepare those patches, so the community will accept them...
Thanks in advance.
> > as having a maximum > > frame size of 1522, but it implements this method, supports 10240, > > and thus is programmed to support frames of that size rather than > > 1522. > > Links: > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Y7M+mWMU+DJPYubp@lunn.ch/T/ > > > Best regards, > > Lukasz Majewski > > -- > > DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany > Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: > lukma@denx.de
Best regards,
Lukasz Majewski
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Erika Unter HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |